Chris Bristow

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I met Salyer at a Lancer Conference. It was after a presentation on the Dallas Doctors. We were surrounded by people desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head. (These people had paid good money to attend a conference in which this story was propagated.) I remember looking around the room and spotting five witnesses claiming to have seen Kennedy's fatal wound. I had spoken to all of them. William Newman had told me the wound he saw in the plaza was over JFK's ear. James Jenkins had told me (with Matt Douthit as a witness) that the far back of the head was shattered but still there beneath the scalp and that the large open wound he'd observed at the beginning of the autopsy was at the top of the back of the head, from the ear on back a few inches. Dr. Peter Loeb had told us the top of the head had been blown off. Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of his head, not back. Which brings us to Salyer. I talked face to face with Salyer for several minutes. He said the wound was on the side and top of the head, and was exactly where it is shown in the autopsy photos. He said as well that he knew people wanted him to say otherwise, but he was gonna tell it like he remembered it. As I recall he said he was open to the possibility of conspiracy, but that the back-of-the head blow-out was nonsense in his opinion. 

So, no, Salyer is not a back of the head witness. In fact, not one of the five witnesses at this conference described such a wound. They all had the chance to say the back of the head was blown out or missing, and excite 150 to 200 people, and all passed. I remember the confused look on some of the faces. It was like they'd gone to a concert, and were disappointed when the performer refused to play his hits or do an encore. They were let down. As I recall, I even heard someone mutter "What a rip-off!" 

 

Would you say then, that Sayler lied when he showed the wound as being in the back of the head? Could we not consider the possibility that maybe he and others lied to you?  There is the likelihood, as has been stated before, that there was good reason for witnesses not to admit what they actually saw. I think the attack on Crenshaw by the journal of American Medical Association puts that option very much on the table. Sayler either grossly misrepresented the wound in the photo or he misrepresented it to you. I see a plausible reason for him to lie to you but not much reason for him to lie about the wound in the photo. Unless he was out for money and notoriety. But that does not comport with what he told you in a conference full of people  "desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head.". 
  I try to view the issue skeptically from both sides and have to wonder if maybe your own perceptions could be a bit colored by your views.  
As an example you said "Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of the head, not back."
   I think your statement shows a bias, as Goldstritch's comment did not suggest the wound was on the top. We have many witnesses who saw brain hanging out from the wound in the O.C. Even as JFK lay on his back, a large portion of the reported O.C. wound would have been visible.  Yet you 'suggest' his statement supports the views you have written extensively on.
  Sayler and the others have contradicted themselves. So now we are left to figure out on which occasions they misrepresented their observations.  As time went by there were more reasons to hold back their true recollection. A good example would be the attack on Crenshaw in the 80's. But reports written on 11/22, like Clark's, and testimony given in March of 64' are more compelling. Even current WC supporters like Baxter and Carrico wrote reports that day that placed the wound firmly in the O.C.
  I believe the overwhelming number of reports that put the wound in the O.C. are completely unexplainable. Even after we scrutinize them and assign nefarious motives to some, the weight, the number of the reports falls very heavily on the side of the O.C. wound. That is the strongest evidence for the validity of the Parkland accounts. All explanations for it fail, imo.  
 

13 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I find your logic quite persuasive.  It's the perfect strategy for the doctors to avoid getting caught between their own observations and the overwhelming power of the government's position.  Simply roll over and not dispute them.

I appreciate that. They can get away with their opinions on what they saw, but accusing the WC of faking the autopsy is much more serious. Calling out other doctors as XXXXX is also something I think they would want to avoid.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I guess you didn't read Bell's article, or my posts in response. It turns out that in a section excised by Micah in his first post (presumably because it didn't deal with the head wounds) Bell mentioned giving a fragment (singular) to a Department of Public Safety officer. I believe this is the official story. Years later she told the HSCA there were multiple fragments and that she gave them to the FBI, which led numerous writers and researchers to  ooh and ahh and assume there was some mass cover-up of the "real" fragments...perhaps because they were too numerous to have come from CE 399. 

This made her a CT darling. 

Well, years after that, she was contacted by the ARRB. And she now shares a story about Perry showing her the head wound, and it's being low on the back of the head. 

While the 1968 article by Bell should cause one to doubt the position first shared with me by Lifton (that she was never even in Trauma Room One) it undoubtedly damages her credibility in other ways. To the extent even that one seriously interested in the truth should avoid listing her among important witnesses. 

I mean, I ended up concluding the back of the head wound described by most researchers is nonsense. But it's not as if there are only a few reasons to believe there was such a wound. We have Clark, first and foremost. And the supporting cast. As has been argued in this thread, one can conclude those stating the wound was not on the far back of the head (Giesecke, Salyer) were mistaken and those claiming they were mistaken when they said it was on the far back of the head  (Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones) were pressured to do so. I don't buy it. But one is not insane to do so. 

Adding the likes of Crenshaw and even McClelland into the mix--people who didn't come forward for decades or who changed their stories after their initial reports--and then appeared to revel in the attention, is questionable to begin with. But relying on Bell--who had no support for her story to begin with--and who it now turns out had written an article within a few years of the assassination that was in direct opposition to her subsequent claims regarding the fragments--well, that's just self-defeating, and fodder for a future Litwin article. 

 

 

Just a couple points about Dr's Sayler and Giesecke. Sayler said "Temporal area" to the WC. A well known photo of him demonstrating the location is taken from a film in which he say "Parietal". That sounds like he did not support the rear head wound location. But the photo clearly shows him with his hand behind the ear and in the midrange, height wise. The photo is the most definitive example we have of where he saw the wound. So why the apparent contradictions? We should note that the temporal, occipital and parietal bones all meet low behind the ear. In the photo his little finger and ring finger, and possibly middle finger, are falling on the parietal bone. His thumb is about at the temporal/occipital junction. His index and middle finger are around the occipital bone. I am making a somewhat rough estimations here because the photo is not the best angle for an exact interpretation. I do think the photo clears up his testimony about the terms he used. He did seem to support the  rear of the head reports.
    Dr Giesecke said to the WC that the wound went from the "Brow line" all the way to the "occiput". His statement supports the large hole in the rear and also the official report. I tend to leave him out of my count because he does not say one or the other location, which raises questions. "Left side" was an obvious and simple mistake that everyone makes sometimes. But it is worth noting that he did see a wound that went all the way down to the occiput. I do not think he can be taken as a supporter of the argument that there was no hole in the rear.
 
 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not so much a matter of accepting vs not accepting, IMO, as it is supporting vs not supporting. The CT community claims they "support" the Parkland witnesses, but they think the prime witnesses--Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones, even Clark--are XXXXX. I admit it, I find this troubling. You can't say you support someone because you liked what they wrote 60 years ago when they have since said what they wrote was in error. 

That is why I asked McClelland the question I asked him. I knew how he would describe the wounds etc, but I wanted to know if he felt his colleagues were lying when they said they were mistaken. He vehemently denied this. He said no one had pressured him to changed his impressions. Period. 

As I said earlier neither McClelland nor any others had to be pressured. The writing was on the wall. Claiming there was a coverup pits you against the powers that be. That is enough for any discerning person to decide not to continue talking about what they personally know to be true. Take Dr Crenshaw's case. He was attacked in the Journal of American Medical Associations. They went as far as to say, (paraphrased) "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day". Who needs that? Anyone would see it could be dangerous to speak out as you might be publicly attacked  and ridiculed on a personal level. Their outlandish claim was easily disproved because 3 staff testified he was in the room. And Baxter was one of them!  Baxter himself confirming Crenshaw's presence  illustrates how boldly they would lie or not bother to research their attacks. That alone is reason to stop talking or maybe even recant.
   Which CT's attacked Clark and why?

  Carrico's recanting is an example of why we might doubt their motives. He waits 20 years and then says he didn't take those reports that seriously in those days. What? It was the president who had been gunned down that day, but he just writes O.C. cause it is not that serious a matter? come on. He says it had been 1/2 hour or an hour since he saw the body. So he just fills in the blanks with a guess. Seriously? He has a chance to correct the story when testifying under oath in 64' but doubles down. He triples down in 78' to the HSCA. The whole thing stinks. But people jump on board when he recants and take his word. He lied under oath twice. His credibility is close to zero! A lawyer on cross would eat him alive but the Parkland apologists eat it up. 

You have talked about McClelland's report and him saying "Left temple". If you accept that other doctors got it wrong on 11/22 is it not possible that McClelland just made a similar mistake?  Can you point me to the report McClelland wrote in which he said "Left temple". Is it still available? 
  And who was the journalist who said McClelland told him he had no reason to believe there was a shot from the front? Can we consider that the journalist's recounting could be wrong?
  Personally I have to consider that "The writing on the wall" is a possible explanation for why she doctors changed their story.   When you have a witness changing their story you have to weigh out both sides and I have yet to see an explanation for the Parkland witnesses that isn't on shaky ground.  It shows that the Parkland apologist's case is, imo, a house of cards.


   

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Sorry, Chris. You are simply incorrect. If you study the statements of the doctors you will find that that basically all of them refused to join the evidence is fake bandwagon. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the autopsy photos were legit. (He thought sagging scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.) This idea they were united in describing a "back of the head' blow-out at odds with the autopsy evidence is a canard, essentially a hoax. I remember watching Groden at a 2013 conference in which he claimed he now had 89- I think it was--witnesses stating the back of the head was blown out. People (and by people I mean the top experts on the medical evidence) looked around in confusion and/or rolled their eyes. It was a fabrication. A hoax. And most everyone there knew it. 

Now, a much more valid argument has to do with the throat wound. As I recall, every doctor at Parkland who saw the throat wound described a wound too small to be an exit for a high-velocity bullet. A number of them even put this in their testimony. On this point, moreover, JFK's primary physician at Parkland, Perry, never backtracked. 

If THIS had been the focus of the research community, instead of the possibility of a back of the head blow-out, the doctors would have given their unanimous support, IMO, and the single-bullet theory would have been destroyed. I mean, just think of it. In recent years, several members of the Secret Service have broken their silence, and have all said the single-bullet theory was garbage. Yes, even Clint Hill. Well, if you added the Parkland doctors onto this--who we should recall were the only doctors to see the throat wound--then even the mainstream media would have to notice. The single-bullet theory would have been given a public death. But no, the doctors were pestered into hiding by the likes of Livingstone and Lifton. And here we are. 

"Sorry, Chris. You are simply incorrect. If you study the statements of the doctors you will find that that basically all of them refused to join the evidence is fake bandwagon. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the autopsy photos were legit. (He thought sagging scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.)"

 So again, there is good reason to consider that they were unwilling to speak directly against the autopsy. It is the majority locating the wound in the O.C. that is the issue.
  Using McClelland's speculation about the scalp being pulled up over the wound is disingenuous since he still maintained there was a large defeat in the O.C.. The observation of that large defect is supported by his own words in that clip from the archives.
"scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.)". Some? You mean the large defect in the O.C that the autopsy X-rays don't show. 
  The issue is the discrepancy of the autopsy vs the accounts from Parkland, not the throat wound. Those discrepancies have no solid explanation. I don't want to just repeat what others likely addressed in their recent response to your argument. I did not read them prior to my posts today. But we have all been over it many times and the skeptics case is, imo, a house of cards. 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Baxter said he mistakenly wrote occipital, denounced Crenshaw, and never supported conspiracy theories holding that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. Jones specified numerous times that he didn't get a good look at the wound, and similarly never supported theories that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. You acknowledge that the doctors' accounts vary. Yes, they do. And yet the majority of them ended up denouncing conspiracy theories in which the autopsy photos were fakes. 

I just don't get it, to be honest. What is this desperation where people NEED the wound to be on the back of the head, when the doctors were inconsistent on this point, and largely deferred to the autopsy photos?

The primary doctors were Carrico, Perry, Clark, McClelland, Jenkins, Peters, Baxter, Salyer, and Jones. Correct? Maybe Midgett and a few others. In any case, despite the frequent claims these guys were all united on there being a blowout wound low on the back of the head, most of them would come to say they were mistaken or didn't get a good look, and that they really saw NOTHING to indicate this shot came from the front. They were not united, after all. In fact, they were far more united on another point--that they thought the autopsy photos were legit--than they were on there being a blow-out wound low on the back of the head. So why do so many people claiming to "support" or "defend" the Parkland witnesses, just ignore everything they had to say after that one report or one comment in which they said something that supported that the wound was low on the back of the head?

And no, it can't be that people believe their first statements are best and their latter-day statements are worthless, (because they are obviously scared or fibbing), because these same people who reject the latter-day statements of Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter simultaneously embrace the latter-day statements of McClelland. 

I mean, if one is to engage in any consistency, one would have to realize that you can't have it both ways, and say McClelland made a mistake when he said the wound was "of the left temple" while simultaneously saying Baxter could not have been mistaken about occipital or Carrico could not have been mistaken about cerebellum. 

So, to refresh, we have a large part of the research community devoted to the premise the back of the wound was blown out--no matter what the doctors would later come to say--no matter what the Dealey Plaza witnesses observed--no matter what is shown on the assassination films--no matter what was seen later at Bethesda--no matter what was recorded on the autopsy photos and x-rays. They just know. It has to be. And why? Because they were told all this evidence support a single-assassin solution.

But, guess what, it doesn't. It never did. The vast majority of research into the "medical evidence" has been a red-herring. 

 

You dismiss the idea that they may have kept their mouths shut about the autopsy. That is your opinion. But if they did see the large exit wound it would be human nature to avoid direct accusations about the autopsy. They can still say what they believe they saw, but accusing the government of a coverup is a much greater matter. The fact is the large majority cited the O.C. as the wound location. Whether some recanted does not change the fact that most all of them placed it there. How did around 20 of them make the observation about it being in that area? Some higher and some lower but it is still unexplainable.

 "Baxter said he mistakenly wrote occipital, denounced Crenshaw, and never supported conspiracy theories holding that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. Jones specified numerous times that he didn't get a good look at the wound, and similarly never supported theories that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head."

 Jones is a good example of a doctor who seems to be avoiding the controversy surrounding the autopsy. We can see him demonstrating the O.C. wound location yet he turns around and says he does not dispute the autopsy photos. Those two facts stand in stark contradiction and suggest he was not fully truthful about the autopsy. The wound was so obvious that even a quick look was enough to see the difference between parietal and occipital.  Baxter, the neurosurgeon, said occipital was missing on the same day he observed it. Same day accounts are considered the best evidence, that is widely accepted. Studies of witness accounts have born out that fact. And the fact that it was corroborated by so many staff
  So pointing to later statements in which they walked back some claims can be explained by their unwillingness to take on the government. It is supported by the fact that around 20 of the staff reported the O.C. as the wound location. 
  Carrico wrote O.C. on the same day and then again under oath at the WC, and again, under oath, at the HSCA. Then some 20 years on he flips. But skeptics accept his flipping because it supports their stance. That shows a very strong bias. Clark did not flip and he held the head in his hands as he inspected the wound. Then made the monumental decision to stop resuscitation based on his very close look. It is absurd to discount such opinions. 20+ staff reporting the O.C. wound is overwhelmingly strong evidence with no valid explanation regardless of what some said in latter years. 

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

The autopsy protocol statated that the large head wound involved the temporal and occipital as well as frontal areas. The x-rays only show fractures in that area. It wasn't until 1966-1967 that the world fully realized the descrepancy of the wound location.

I thought they said it extended toward the occipital as opposed to including the occipital bone, but I could be wrong. The photos are the big lie, and show the autopsy as fake, all imo. But doctors do sometimes refer to the posterior as the occipital area, so I give it some leeway.

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

In such a delicate study, just summarizing what a witness said isn't enough.

Yes, each witness has multiple statements over many years. They all have to be taken into account and weighed together. That can result in an ambiguity about their exact opinion. When you have 20+ witnesses it results in further ambiguity when evaluating the subject as a whole. That is why I think it helps to toss out many of the witnesses. But the numbers you are left with still very strongly indicates  the wound as being in the O.C.
   But I also think that before any scrutiny we have 20 or more and that in itself is a strong argument for the O.C. It is often said those doctors did not see many gunshot wounds(At least not many rifle wounds), or that they often get wound location wrong, or they were too busy trying to save his life to notice that big hole in his head(Humor intended.) But the sheer numbers make those explanations untenable. I think it Was Vincent Bugliosi who floated the last one, but the 20+ makes that excuse look like nothing but propaganda. He was a lawyer defending the WC against the sworn testimony from Parkland. He had to have read that part of the WC report. 
      I was thinking recently about the letter Dr Jenkins wrote on the day of the assassination when he described the wound as a laceration both temporal and occipital. 
 Consider that we have one doctor trying to give another doctor a visual idea of the wound. And also   consider that the temporal bone attaches to the occipital. Now I know the temporal bone also extends up into the temple area and doctors do refer to that area by talking about the temporal bones(Plural). But what picture would the doctor receiving the letter conclude, when the doctor writing the letter says "Temporal and occipital" without any mention of the parietal? Would he picture the official wound location, or would he picture a wound behind the ear and low where the temporal attaches to the occipital? It is hard to see one doctor describing the wound to another doctor and expecting them to assume the wound was not behind the ear.
 I know a lot is made of Baxter, McClellend, Jones and Perry saying in their ARRB deposition that they were never coerced. But someone like McClellend knowing what he saw, and then the official story completely contradicting him, he must have seen the writing on the wall. He must conclude there is a coverup and it would be done by very powerful people. Most intelligent people would know the jeopardy of speaking out against the official record. Not to mention Hosty was counseling them on what to say. No coercion would be needed to shut them up in the early days.
   Perry told the WC the wound was parietal occipital. But he was called back he was shown the autopsy results and asked if he agreed with it. He said yes and that was it. No follow up questions about why he changed his story. You have to wonder why he flipped 180 degrees. Maybe he too saw the writing on the wall.

Below is a clip from the Nova doc that I am linking from Vince Palamara's YouTube Channel. I have watched it multiple times but always missed something. At 3:00 minutes Cronkite refers to the well known drawing that McClellend approved. Cronkite points out that the doctors and Nova saw photos of wounds that support the McClellend drawing showing the large wound in the O.C that is consistent with the location and size of the McClellend drawing.. He contrasts the drawing against the autopsy photo that shows only a small entry wound in the rear and says  "Dr McClellend speculates". McClellend then speculates that they have pulled the scalp up over the wound he saw that day.
  What I missed is that Cronkite clearly says the Nova staff and the doctors looked at autopsy photos that conform to the McClellend drawing!! Has anyone seen autopsy photos that correspond to the wound being in the O.C? No, of course not. What the hell is he talking about?
 

What we have from the Parkland accounts is up to 18 or 19 placing the wound in the O.C and only four, Baxter, Carrico, Jenkins and Grossman who support the official story. But of those 4 Carrico, Baxter and Jenkins wrote contradictory reports from the day of the assassination. So almost everyone described the wound placed it in the O.C at some point, most of them very early.  
     Lets say the numbers were reversed and and only 4 supported the O.C location. If I, as a CT tried to argue that we should accept the 4 over the other 18 I would be called out as a weak minded CT who uses CT logic. 
  But the reverse is true and the vast majority support the O.C. location. Yet skeptics argue  against the majority. Their arguments use a great deal of conjecture as they try to chip away at the testimony they don't agree with. The much much stronger argument leans to the O.C wound.
  Contrary statements  should be expected with them repeating their observations over decades. This muddies the waters. So lets scrutinize the seemingly contrary stories and toss out almost half the O.C. reports. Dulany said O.C in the Nova doc at the archives; but an earlier photo shows him holding his hand closer to the official location, so toss him out. Lets drop the O.C testimonies to 10. But with the same level of scrutiny we can eliminate 3 of the 4 supporters of the official story. that leaves the score at about 10 to 1. There is no way to create a logical arguments that turns the narrative around. The facts overwhelmingly support the the wound in the back of the head. 

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Except...no. She failed to report or write down anything about the head wound location for decades, after she'd been exposed to the McClelland drawing, Lifton, etc. So her recollections are almost worthless. 

While Micah's find supports that she was in the room and potentially saw the wound, it does not support her claim Perry showed her the wound and it was low on the back of the head. Perry had no recollection of it and she failed to write a report or an entry in a diary or anything that would support her latter-day claims. 

If you look at the anatomy drawings she drew on for the ARRB, moreover, one can see that the wound on the rear views and side views are not in the same location. Even more problematic, she placed the wound much much lower than the other witnesses, to the extent that "her" wound failed to overlap the wound seen by the majority of " back of the head" witnesses. 

So she doesn't really help the "back of the head" argument much, if at all. 

You imply she was influenced by later accounts but that is speculation. Her accounts are consistent with reports from that day. Her recollections are not 'almost worthless'. Other staff placed the wound low and others higher. Watching a video of Jones placing his hand at the observed location, he started low, then moved up, then moved up again before his final location. It is clear they vary on the height but they don't place it on the top of the head. We should expect some difference in their accounts. Any scalp hanging down would obscure the top of the wound so we can allow for some vertical variance. In fact we should expect to see some variation. some accounts that place the would high could be debated as mis identifications of the official location but not the ones who placed it lower.  Baxters account from his report written on 11/22 states the occipital bone was missing. So it turns out even a skeptic and neurosurgeons opinion is in line with Bells recollection.
   

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not remembering seeing the throat wound is not the same as actually never seeing the throat wound.

Also,

 

In a  November 1988 newspaper article, Dr. Ronald Jones, Nurse Audrey Bell, and Parkland assistant administrator Steve Landregan posed for a photo inside of an emergency room at Parkland - an the caption says "Jones and Bell worked to save Kennedy, although Bell knew at once his wounds were fatal" : https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/132394283/

 

Although this stops just short of having another witness to corroborate Bell being in Trauma Room One.

Interesting points. I had wondered why I did not see any specific documentation of her setting up for a surgery. I thought it would be presumptuous for her to not follow Dr Jones's instructions based on a few early opinions. But Dr Clark halted the resuscitation efforts as soon as he noted to the others that the wound was " unsurvivable". Considering he was a neurosurgeon and had a good understanding of the bone structure of the head, his description of the head wound as a blasted out section of the "occipital parietal" also supports Bell's observations. 
  Not to belabor the point, but Dr Grossman said when he entered the room Clark was "Holding JFK's head in his hands". Clark noted the gushes of blood and brain matter pulsating from the wound due to the chest massage from inches away. There is no doubt That this neurosurgeon made a very sober and informed observation of the wound location that day. Based on that he made the monumental and historic decision to give up on the most powerful man in the world.
    Dr Baxter was also a neurosurgeon and we find out from his written report(ARRB) from 11/22 that he referred to the wound saying "The occipital bone was missing." Nurse Bell's observations are well corroborated. 

 Doctor Dulany said in an interview that when he first walked in that another doctor, he can't remember who, turned JFK'S  head to the side to show the full extent of the wound. Very similar to  Nurse Bell's account. 

 In Dr Jones's WC testimony he said he took the call from the cafeteria. He was told JFK had been shot and would be there shortly. He said he hung up and turned to Nurse Bell telling her to prepare the operating room for surgery. I wonder if seeing the location and nature of the gunshot wound would help her prepare the O.R.?

He also said when he arrived in trauma 1 with Perry,  Dr Carrico and maybe  Dulany were present. He also said nurses Bowron, Henchcliffe and Nelson were there. With 5 or 6 staff already present, it may be that when Bell arrived there were several staff standing around the neck area. That may be why she did not see the neck wound.  If she stood near the head of the table her view to it could have been blocked by JFK'S head. It is also possible the hands of Dr Perry or anyone else assisting blocked her view.

Dr Curtis and Dr Baxter both testified to the WC that Dr Crenshaw was present in the room.

 Many of the Parkland witnesses were asked by the WC to name the other staff members they remembered being in the room that day.  Most of them only recalled a few names, although we know there were many doctors and nurses in the room. I don't think we can infer too much from Hall not being remembered in WC testimony.

I have wondered how nurse Hall could see a bullet when 20+ staff described their observation of the wound and recalled no copper colored object.  Well, many said blood and brain matter was  ejected with each compression of the chest from heart message.  The area behind the ear must have been a mess of blood and brain matter.  It also must have been a dynamic situation inwhich each pulse of extruding brain and blood matter may have changed what was visible from moment to moment. I wonder if she saw a 3cm long bullet or just the rear end of something copper colored? I consider it possible that she did see a bullet or a fragment.

The most consistent accounts place the wound in the occipital parietal area as did Phyllis Hall. With 20+ witnesses repeating their stories many times over decades we have to expect some contradictory testimony from those witnesses. But even if we toss out half of them for sometimes minor inconsistencies, the weight of the Parkland testimony cannot be explained away.

For decades skeptics have pushed the absurd narrative that the Parkland doctors were so busy trying to save JFK that they never got a good look at the big hole in his head.  Or they saw it but somehow they all got it wrong.  Even considering the contradictions to be found around the edges of their accounts, there is no plausible explanation for the overwhelming consistency of the Parkland testimony. The skeptics explanations amount to a shakey house of cards,, imo.

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

That alone seems to put Landis' story to bed. It would also be hard to explain how a bullet causing only a shallow wound would sustain the amount of damage that CE 399 did.

The questions just keep piling up. One more day and the only questions left will be about his motive for lying. 

The following quote from the article implies the bullet was ejected from the shallow back wound by the energy of the head shot. It appears to be the speculation of the author, not Landis.

"Maybe the bullet entered the president’s back only superficially; these WW II–vintage bullets, after all, were notoriously undercharged with gunpowder. If this were the case, it might have indeed fallen out when he was violently struck with the final shot;".

 He further speculates it landed on Jackie's clothing and was dragged with her as she climbed onto the trunk. In that case the bullet would not need to exit through the hole in the coat, as I assumed before. But it would still have to exit through the hole in the shirt.  The hole in the shirt would have to be aligned with the entry wound even though JFK had raised his hands and hunched forward.

For a bullet to reverse and exit his back the shirt and coat would have to be lined up with the entry wound at that moment. That seems unlikely since he raised his arms and hunched over after he the back/throat shot.

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

First Sam Kinney tells his neighbor that he found the bullet in the limo and placed it on the stretcher. Now Landis is saying HE was the one who found it and put it on the stretcher. Who's next Clint Hill?

 

 

I just never understood how Kinney would have thought he was "Doing something for his president" and "protecting his memory" by moving a bullet from the limo to his stretcher.  

 Landis claiming the bullet needed to stay with JFK'S body is also strange.  People can do very odd things when grief stricken but I think both stories sound fishy. 

After hearing the illogical reasoning attributed to Kinney, I considered that he may be taking the heat for another agents actions. Landis suffering from PTSD could have been the motivation for Kinney to bring the truth to light, thereby relieving some psychological burden from Landis. 

They can't  both be telling the truth so there has to be motive to lie for one of them. I wonder what other motive might be plausible?

 If that seems like a stretch how bout this. The magic bullet bounced off Connally's femur and back out through the hole in his trousers. It then spun in the air as Connally jerked his hat upwards. The hat caught the bullet and flicked it over his left shoulder. It landed on the top/back of the seat. 

The SBT is saved and Oswald was the lone assassin.  And I am not serious.

On 8/26/2023 at 2:22 PM, Gerry Down said:

That's the problem. We don't know exactly the positions of each man. This has enabled Dale Myers to put forth his animation as credible as it's difficult to dispute his positioning of the two men.

Yes it creates considerable ambiguity. I think it has also been pointed out that Connally was too small. Computer 3d models are touted as unquestionably accurate but they can be manipulated.

I  wonder how accurately the trajectory of the 2nd shot can be estimated from what we can see in the Z film?  If you draw a trajectory thru JFK to Connally's entry wound, but then change either persons lateral position in the limo by just 1/2 inch the trajectory changes by 1 degree. 

Maybe we could find their positions to within about 1  inch left or right. Move JFK 1 inch to his right and Connally 1  inch to his left and the trajectory changes 4 degrees.

Connally is rotated in his seat and I have heard estimations from 20 to 30 degrees.  5 degrees rotational  difference changes the lateral  trajectory by another inch or 2 more degrees. If Connally scooted 3 inches forward to start his turn add another 2 degrees due to the bullets 13 degree lateral trajectory onto and across the limo.

8 degrees may be as close as we can estimate a trajectory based on the wounds.

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I did say:  "This is only possible if the car was either about 6 to 8 feet farther east than is depicted in the film,"

BUT I ALSO SAID: "or the limo is turned six or seven degrees to the right of the direction of Elm Street at that point. It's possible that Greer veered to the right a bit as he looked over his right shoulder."

I think the more feasible answer is the second choice. The reflection off the trunk match frame 312 and the limo continued in a crooked manner for around 30 more frames. 

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

There was a women witness that heard or saw shots "coming from the bushes"

A woman in front of the TSBD told officer J. Smith people were shooting from the bushes in the general area of the colonnade or west of it.  Smith then encountered the SS I.D. guy in that approx area.  Possibly at about the same time and place we see the Silhouette guy in the Bothun photo.

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

A knoll shooter(s) would be virtually invisible.  Think about it.  Only from the nose or cheek area sticking above the fence, what five-six inches, for what thirty seconds or so.  With all attention focused on JFK, not the GK top of the picket fence under the live oaks.  Spotter.  He's here as they turn on to Houston.  Shooter pops up with rifle as they turn onto Elm, sights in, boom, ducks, throws gun into open trunk (never searched-any of them), walks away.

While I'm wildly speculating can anyone handle two shots from the GK?  The first, throat shot, came from the front.  An accepted fact for some given Malcom Perry and hands to the throat in the Zapruder film.  Then, back and to the left is from the right front.  I'm no physicist, but pretty basic.

The 5 ft stake fence is definitely providing almost complete coverage.  And all those other factors like ducking and placing the gun in a car trunk in less than 2 seconds, with most people looking away in those moments puts a shooter in a very good position. If there was no shooter there they missed the opportunity of a lifetime..

The angle from the fence to a throat shot  at frame 209 to 224 would be about 30 degrees. That bullet would exit around JFK'S  jugular vein on his left side.  It does not square with any of the CT or LN versions and makes question a knoll throat shot.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Chris...  I do need to ask, since we are talking about the knoll area...

The black couple that was said to have been sitting on the bench behind the retaining wall and that threw down the pop bottle... why is it we do not see their heads above the retaining wall?  There's the bench at the lower right... sitting there they both would have been obvious, no?  Or is Sitzman fibbing?

Sitzman: Some ran ... I mean ... I finally got back up to the alcove. There was bunches of people just swarming back there, and I think almost everybody on that hill ran back up that way. And another thing that I remember this day: there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence.
Thompson: In other words, between you and the fence, there's a tree right next to the ...
Sitzman: There's a tree, and there's another part of the marble or concrete, whatever they call it, slab, fence, whatever they call it, between that and the wooden fence.
Thompson: Which direction was the bench facing when you ...
Sitzman: It was facing towards the street.
Thompson: Towards the street. Parallel? Downstreet? Facing forward?
Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too.

I could only guess as to why they don't show up in Willis 5.  Maybe they reflect enough light to fade into the blotchy grey scale pattern of the fence behind them. Can't say how much the head might be turned towards the light or how much is in shadow.

BDM seems strangely dark but what might be his face is a fairly light shade of grey that is not too far off the background.

It is possible the camera just did not pick them up.